I always thought that bottle fed boys were more obsessed with boobs.
Eh, I was bottle- and breastfed, and I still like them. Wait, that sounds sort of creepy that way, so let me clarify: I’m not referring to that specific pair. That would just be disturbing.
The evolutionary reasons are the rational explanation, but in my brain, “breasts” and “rational” don’t really go together very well. Which is why I think I should start abstaining from breast threads without “Visual aids provided!” in the title.
Two reasons:
Men like the “soft curves” esthetic of the female form. Breasts contribute quite nicely to that shape.
They’re so soft to rest one’s head on. It’s a very comfortable feeling.
I’m more of a face guy too, so Darkhold ain’t completely alone.
I don’t think it’s just men, though. My SO will frequently comment on a woman’s breasts first, as in “those aren’t real; too small; too big; now those are real…” I think Call Me Frank hits close to home. If men had their own breasts, they probably wouldn’t be so obsessed with someone else’s.
I’m reminded of a frank exchange between two Musketeers in The Man In The Iron Mask that occassionally pops into my head at inopportune times:
Aramis: “Sometimes there are more important things in life than a good pair of tits.”
Porthos: “Really? If you can name me one thing that is more sublime than the feel of a plump, pink nipple between my lips, I’ll build you a new cathedral.”
Maybe they really are awesome.
I must say that I’m a breast man. I don’t ogle, but I definitely think that breasts are what my eyes eventually settle on when looking at a woman. One thing I’ve always been amazed at is the ability to recognize the form of a good looking woman instantly and from quite a distance, like pattern recognition or plane spotting…
To combine these topics a bit: I really like sports bras!!!
(mmmm. . . Mia Hamm . . . mmmm)
.
Already In Use: That was a joke! It was meant to be funny.
As for the visual aids. Ladies, any takers? At this point I do not see too many hands going up. Sorry
It’s not cultural conditioning – interest in breats is widespread and universal. You can find it expressed in the myths, art, and literature of people all over the world. It’s true that fashions and emphases change, and the size and shape favored for breasts may change, but the interest is always there.
Desmond Morris explained interest in breasts (and, to some degree, in other rounded parts such as shoulders and knees) as “echoic” of the female buttocks. See, in particular, the illustrated edition of his book Manwatching, although he outlines his theory in other books, too. Particularly The Naked Ape (Morris is terrible about referencing and attributing ideas, but in this case it does seem to be his idea).
I have to admit that I agree. The buttocks are a focus for primates, virtually all of which (except for humans and bonobos) mate from behind. In many species the hindquarters of the female swell up and change color when they are in heat, emphasizing this. Humans mate from behind, too, and are effectively always “in heat”. That explains the attraction to buttocks well enough for me. The development of breasts as an echo of the buttocks for front-facing sexual creatures seems like a logical extension.
There’s more to support this. Other primate features on the front or the face are echoic of the bottom or genitals. Compare, for instance, the bright blue and red mandrill face with its nether parts.
As Morris points out, larger breasts have nothing to do with nursing – others primates nurse perfectly well without large breasts. A large human breast can even be an enxcumbrance to nursing. Big boobs ain’t there for the baby.
The clincher, for me, is the gelada baboon. The female of this species has a “ring” or “necklace” of raised areas around its buttocks, but she also has a similar ring around her chest. The gelada doesn’t have enlarged human-type breasts (and, in fact, as a knuckle-walker, she doesn’t have human-large buttocks to echo), but she does have a buttock-echo on her chest. The parallel to the case of the human large buttocks/large breast seems perfect.
I’ll add that the breasts (and buttocks, for that matter) probably serve another purpose as well – if they are appropriately large and fat they indicate that the bearer is healthy and well-fed. I’ve read that the comb atop a rooster’s head, which otherwise seems a useless extravagance, is a good indicator of the health of the bird – underfed or sick roosters don’t have brightly-colored and well-filled-out combs.
My take on this is that of “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” … lemme 'splain
When young we all “fed” from these wonderful appendages. We retained that knowledge within our subconscious mind and know very well that we can have them again, someday.
Although other parts of the female human body are, as we say, “edible”, in actuality the only part we can truly receive sustenance from is … oops … are … the breasts.
The other possibility is seeing how us men are taken so thoroughly by remote controls and button pushing … well, that’s probably self explanatory.
This should settle this question once and for all.
At first I was going to say it’s because Men don’t have breasts. It’s part of what makes us different.
But, then why aren’t there more “Vagina Men”? There are “Ass Men, Leg Men, etc…” but, I don’t hear alot of men claiming to be Vagina men. Is it just assumed?
I am declaring myself a “Vagina Man”
Often, and certainly more common than other fetishes, but not always. Many cultures have an interest in other parts of the female anatomy. The Chinese for decades fixated on the foot. In the flapper era, a flat chest was considered sexy. In the Victorian times, it was a very narrow waist (look at the Gibson Girl, the epitomy of beauty of the time – small waist, long hair, and a bosom that was completely deemphasized). In the 30s, the legs were what was portrayed as being sexy.
In areas where females habitually went around topless, breasts were generally not symbols of sexuality (though they could be symbols of fertility, which isn’t the same thing). Married Native American women would go around topless in summer – do you really think their husbands would allow this if this was a sign of their sexual availability or if they thought it would arouse other men?
If this is something hardwired, it should be present in every culture and every time. Since there are cultures and times where the interest in the breast isn’t paramount, then it can’t be hardwired.
And if Morris the evolutionist lived in 19th Century China, he’d explain how foot binding had an evolutionary basis, too. :rolleyes: Why is foot binding only a fetish, whereas a breast fetish hardwired? Because the people making the determination have a liking for breasts?
Again, the fixation on the leg (and calf), the waist, the artificially elongated neck of the African tribal women, the lip plate of some African tribes (see this – what makes this women sexy to her tribesmen are the lip plates and the tattoos, not the breasts), etc. indicates that the breast fetish isn’t hardwired. Hell, the emphasis on the hips in classical art has a better evolutionary reasoning than Morris’s (big hips = better able to bear children).
Right. And big boobs are a late 20th century obsession, and, up until recently, pretty much an American fetish, at that (in the 60s, Europeans were mystified by the American obsession with large breasts).
Going back prior to 1940, large breasts were considered somewhat grotesque. Classical art always portrayed breasts a what would now be considered medium-sized – not flat, but not large enough to turn men’s heads nowadays. And nudes tended to emphasize the hips, not the breasts.
Goya’s “The Naked Maja” is a case in point – the painting emphasizes her hips, not her breasts, and it was made specifically to portray a sex object. Note that in the painting the breasts look blurry as opposed to the sharp detail of the hips (and pubic region). If Goya was emphasizing the breasts, he would have done the opposite.
So this supposedly hardwired desire never seemed to show itself until the 20th century. :dubious:
You and Morris are so immersed in your cultural assumptions that they color all your reasoning. Woman’s breasts are a fetish, just the way other parts of a woman’s (or man’s) body can be a fetish.
Gotta disagree with you, RealityChuck. The sexiness of breasts dioesn’t require them to be paramount, or even excessively large, or even the prime fovus of one’s sexual interest. But it does mean that they are points of attraction and interest. You seem to suggest that there’s no interest in women’s breasts prior to the 1950s, and then only in America, I’m sure you don’t mean that. I can show you examples of impressiuvely decked women in German sedxual cartoons from the 1920s. Or take Shakespeare’s quotes, such as “…those milk-paps that through window-bars bore at mean’s eyes” (See Eric Partridge’s book Shakespeare’s Bawdy for other examples. Lots of 'em). In the Morris book I cite above is photographic evidence from pre-1950s Europe. Heck, go as far back as you like. Cretan female figures with the impressive bare bodices. Indian art with their spherical-breasted Shaktis. Prehistoric “Venus” figures with huge bottoms and bellies, but big breasts, too.
Yes, it’s true that interest has settled on other areas of the female anatomy at different times and places. Elongated necks and bound feet. But African carvings very often show and exaggerate the conical breasts. Chinese erotic art allows glimpses of the bare breast. The female anatomy is not a sexual tabula rasa on which fashion can erase sexual interstr and displace it elsewhere. Fashion has to deal with pre-existing pre-wired interests.
No American interest in breasts before the 1950s? Look at the Gibson Girl!!
I’m attracted to anything that stares at me without blinking.
Mmm. Breasts.
Mmmmm.
I’m sorry, what was the question again?
RealityChuck:
Yes, I recall the British guy saying something to that effect in “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World”
That might be true in the “bigger is better” sense that leads to such phenomena as the 70-HHH silicone exotic dancer, but attraction to a nicely rounded chest in the normal range (say, mid-to-high-30’s, B-D) is certainly not something that’s unique to America or the late 20th.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I think it’s because of two reasons:
– They’re covered up. The forbidden is exciting.
– On some women, they are erogenous zones. Men think, “Ug. I rub there, she have sex with me. Grunt.”
Has anyone here spent a lot of time on a topless beach? I’m wondering if my experience is unique. I went to the south of France for about a week one time and, as you may know, they have plenty of topless beaches. At first it was quite exciting to be surrounded by beautiful, topless women. But after a while the eroticism of the bare breasts wore off. They became just another part of the woman’s body. I found my self appreciating breasts the same way I might if a woman had a nice face or nice legs. Yes, they were nice to look at, but it wasn’t so much in a sexual way.
I’ve seen a million topless breasts on beaches…and it’s never failed to be a sexual turn-on.
Oh, and I’m a Vagina Man, too…I think…
blasphmer - Ack! My name’s Janelle. That wierded me out a bit, hehe.
I’m a female, and I like the boobies. Adds to the whole soft curvy bits that women have. Mmmmm.